|
|
Foreign polices of Capitalist nations are primarily driven by Economic interests, i.e. profit maximization, which translates to accessing new markets for its capital (Foreign investment), goods and services. International trade necessitates the lowering (or removal) of trade barriers and most importantly the willingness of the nations to trade, which would results in some form of negotiation leading to bilateral or multilateral treaties. If one of the parties decide to close its borders things can get nasty.
As the British and the Dutch, East India companies demonstrated with the power of their navy in India, China and Indo-China, brutally colonizing and plundering these lands for centuries in the name of “free trade”. Britain even took the role of a Mafia Drug dealer in China, by forcing opium on the native Chinese, a nation that was reluctant to trade with Britain. The US followed the same policies as its former colonial masters, by imposing its version of “free” trade by force on Korea, Central and South America (Declaration by the Monroe Doctrine, Spanish-American War), Pacific and elsewhere.
“Free” trade has often meant imposing the trade by the barrel of the gun. Unlike the more cunning and deceitful former European colonizers the American culture is relatively more frank and hence the former US president Woodrow Wilson said: “Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed against him must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process.”
As did William Howard Taft, secretary of war under the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, who explained that foreign policy "may well be made to include active intervention to secure for our merchandise and our capitalists opportunity for profitable investment."
Successive Presidents and Secretaries of the State have echoed this. Conflicts were not confined between the Colonialist and its colonies, often the Colonialists went to war with each other competing for market shares, the scramble for Africa in the 19th Century by European countries led to many successive wars, as did the struggle over sub-continent, South America and China.
All these skirmishes eventually climaxed with the First World War. Cost of the war led many of the nations to consider negotiating their differences rather then use the military option, this contributed towards the growth of various international political and economical institutions. This was solidified after the Second World War.
At the same time many of the academics argued for the advantages of free trade in generating wealth (theories of trade specialization) for the trading nations and the harmful affects of closing the borders, the economic depression of the 1930s are often highlighted as an example of the consequence of raising the trade barriers.
So nations seeking trade liberalization under the frenzy of Globalization went to the recent WTO meeting held in the Mexican resort of Cancun, seeking to establish a consensus, which could have potentially lead to a multilateral agreement between its 146 members.
The agenda was initiated at the previous meeting at Doha. However, few considered the main stumbling block -- the basic human nature of greed -- rich and the powerful wants to get richer, even it means making the rest of the world poorer. A natural human trait that is not regulated but rather completely let loose within the Capitalist paradigm, it forms one of the basic pillars of the “free market” fundamentalism (Capitalism).
Hence, the debased desires to covet the wealth of other nations, after securing the wealth from within by depriving the majority of its own masses of decent living standards, are enforced by the deployment and careful marketing of fanciful terms like “free” market. Hence we witness the belligerence of the “freedom” fanatic fundamentalists.
Even a cursory glance will tell you that it is “freedom” for and in particular its multinationals, and financiers not the freedom that is universally applicable to all human beings and nations. Never the less the member states hoped that everyone would see the mutual benefit and some form of compromise would be reached on that basis.
The summit was however a failure as nations walked out, unable to reach any agreement. However many viewed it as a turning point, as for the first time the poorer nations put up collective resistance against the three economic giants, US, Europe and Japan, this resistance led some to declare it as a form of victory for the poorer nations. The opposition was primarily provided by the G22 group of countries, which was led by the axis of Brazil and China, other less influential groups like the Least-Developed countries with its 49 members led by Bangladesh, African, Caribbean and Pacific Group (ACP) etc were also there to negotiate their own respective interests.
|
Tags
You must be logged in to add tags.
|
Writer Profile
Kashif Zulfiqar
This user has not written anything in his panorama profile yet.
|
Comments
WTO and a New World Order Sardar Taimur Hyat-Khan | Aug 30th, 2004
The subject article on the WTO is an expression of frustration that is a result of rampant "Free (for all but the target consumer) Trade". However, the subject cannot be treated suprficially or even through confrontation. The World is allready riven by disent and cannot afford more rivalry. A "Us against Them" approach will yield no benefits what so ever and in fact will generate more rivalry.
Understanding Human Nature or even some slight analysis will prove that greed is not the soverign property of Developed Nations. It is inherrent in humanity to greater or lesser degrees. There is a Hindko saying "hath Lagya naheen Tey Saray Wali Allah," No opportunity for misconduct leads to the claim of Friendship with Allah.
If the Poor Countries band together and get the support of the Oil Rich arab States, what guarantee that they will not follow the same course of exploitation for personal and short term gain?
I believe that the solution lies in Globalization through Localization and also with the support and Networking of all sustainable development votaries on a Global basis. The Simultaneous Policy as outlined in www.simpol.org has some very good directions for change. However, I feel that their opposition to Biotech has to be rationalized. Also the resistance to emerging Multinationals has to cease as it is imperative for continued Human advancement. What is required is just and equitable regulation and not banishment. I ask you what if there is an opportunity to mine some badly required metal from Uranus. The power of R&D and the ability to pool huge resources can only arise from Private Enterprise that is well regulated. If Governments take on these tasks the fruit will belong to that particular Government. If the UN or some similiar body goes in for such activity it will be bogged down by the bureaucratic mess that such organizations are prey to.
To sum up, I feel that Simultaneous Policy, duly reviewed, Regulated Trade and Localization are the areas wherein we can find relief from exploitation.
Please remember that Countries or nations are not bad in themselves, it is people that are good or bad or various shades of grey. If a paryticular group has gained influence over a Nation it can be bad or good. It serves no purpose what so ever to consign every citizen of that Country to the dust bin.
Also please keep in mind that the extremely untenable situations of most Countries due to Poverty is mostly due to the corruption of its own power lobbies that have actively connived with "Greedy Capitalists" to sell their Countries and fellow citizens down the river.
Best Regards
Sardar Taimur hyat-Khan
XChairman Khidmat Foundation
(No link with Jamaat-e-Islami)
You must be a TakingITGlobal member to post a comment. Sign up for free or login.
|
|
